Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising: Examining the

Toward a general theory of creativity inadvertising: Examining the role of divergence

Robert E. SmithIndiana University, USA

Xiaojing YangIndiana University, USA

Abstract. Despite the widespread recognition of the importance of creativity inadvertising by practitioners and scholars, no systematic research has been conductedto define ad creativity or examine how it relates to ad effectiveness. The presentresearch attempts to fill this gap by reviewing past literature in psychology, marketingand advertising. From this base, a model is developed which defines a creative ad asboth divergent (i.e. novel or unusual) and relevant. The effects of divergence and (toa lesser extent) relevance on consumer processing and response are examined and aseries of theoretical propositions are developed. Next, a general theory of creativity inadvertising is developed that calls for research in five primary areas: advertising as acommunication process, management process, societal process, group process, andpersonal process. Finally, contributions to advertising theory and implications forfuture research are discussed, along with commentary from a prominent advertisingexecutive. Key Words • advertising • advertising theory • creativity • divergence

Introduction

The relationship between creativity and advertising is long, rich and textured.Creativity is considered to be an important determinant of advertising effective-ness and advertising textbooks normally devote one or two chapters to creativestrategy and tactics. Major industry awards (e.g. Clio’s) are given to ‘creative’advertisements and salaries to ‘creative’ personnel represent a considerable portion of ad agencies’ expenses. In addition, there is a strong focus on creativityin advertising trade papers like Advertising Age, Ad Week and even Creativity

31

Volume 4(1/2): 31–58Copyright © 2004 SAGE

www.sagepublications.comDOI: 10.1177/1470593104044086

articles

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 31

www.sagepublications.com

(published by Ad Age). Indeed, few advertising and promotion executives wouldquestion the centrality of a good creative strategy and execution (Martin, 1995).

Despite the importance attributed to creativity, there has been very littleresearch on this issue in marketing and advertising. Indeed, Zinkhan (1993) surveyed the previous 15 years of the Journal of Advertising and found that onlyfive published papers (1.4 percent) dealt explicitly with creativity. Zinkhan (1993)concluded by noting the importance of creativity and calling for more research oncreativity in advertising. Unfortunately, this lack of systematic theory develop-ment in advertising creativity has created a vacuum in the literature. Specifically,major reviews of the conceptual space of creativity lack any significant referenceto advertising (for example, see the Handbook of Creativity [Sternberg, 1999] orCreativity in Context [Amabile, 1996]). These gaps highlight the current lack of development of theories of advertising creativity. Accordingly, the major goalsof this article are to:

• define creativity and its two major determinants – divergence and relevance; • develop the divergence component in greater detail; • examine conceptual issues regarding ad divergence and consumer processing/

response; and • develop a structural format for a general theory that considers the broader inter-

face between creativity and advertising.

Defining creativity

Definition of creativity

According to Webster’s dictionary to ‘create’ means: to bring into existence, toinvest with a new form, to produce through imaginative skill. The EncyclopediaBritannica uses a similar definition: the ability to make or otherwise bring intoexistence something new, whether a new solution to a problem, a new method ordevice, or a new artistic object or form. These definitions highlight two primarydeterminants of creativity. First, there must be something new, imaginative, different, or unique – this component is generally referred to as ‘divergence’.Second, the divergent thing produced must solve a problem or have some type of‘relevance’.

Ad creativity versus personal creativity

People are creative when they produce ideas, solutions, inventions, or productsthat are divergent and relevant. Note that divergence and relevance are deter-mined by context or the ‘social recognition criteria’ (Getzels and Csikszent-mihalyi, 1975; MacKinnon, 1962). This means that an ad that is creative to onegroup (e.g. senior citizens) may not be considered to be creative by another group(e.g. teenagers). Ultimately, ads are products of people, just like ideas and inven-tions. Accordingly, the concepts of divergence and relevance can be applied to

marketing theory 4(1/2)articles

32

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 32

anything people create including advertisements. This is important because threedifferent types of creativity are related to advertising. First, there is the creativeteam who develop and implement the creative strategy and actually produce thead. Second, there is the level of creativity that the ad is perceived to possess by thetarget market. Third, there is the level of creativity in the audience members whoare exposed to the ad. While there are likely to be interactions among these threetypes of creativity (as hypothesized below) the defining characteristics of creativity– divergence and relevance – do not change. Instead, it is the context that changes.In an attempt to note the important differences that do exist among these contexts, the term ‘personal creativity’ will refer to the divergence/relevance ofcreative talent (e.g. creative directors, copywriters, etc.); ‘ad creativity’ will refer to the divergence/relevance of an ad (or campaign) as perceived by the target market; and ‘consumer creativity’ will refer to the divergence/relevance of theaudience members exposed to the ad.

Creativity in psychology

One of the first formal definitions of creativity was developed by Guilford (1950)who was interested in the relationship between creativity and intelligence.Guilford believed that the standard IQ tests of the 1950s omitted important cognitive functions – specifically the ability to think divergently and be creative.‘Most of our problem solving in everyday life involves divergent thinking. Yet, inour educational practices, we tend to emphasize teaching students how to findconventional answers’ (Guilford, 1968: 8). To fully account for creativity,Guilford (1956) developed the ‘Structure of Intellect Model’ which attempted toorganize all of human cognition along three dimensions:

1 Five thought processes or operations: (cognition, memory, evaluation, conver-gent production, divergent production);

2 Four types of content to which the operations can be applied: (figural, sym-bolic, semantic, behavioral);

3 Six products or results of the operations on the content: (units, classes, rela-tions, systems, transformations, implications).

The result is 120 (5 × 4 × 6) different mental abilities, many of which Guilford andhis associates devised tests to measure. In this model, creative thinking occurswhen divergent thoughts are produced. The divergent production system isinvolved in 24 of the 120 mental abilities and thus represents an important cogni-tive domain. In this model, creativity is defined as divergent thinking and is animportant component of human intellect. This suggests that all consumers havethe potential to identify creative stimuli and respond favorably to them.

Abraham Maslow was another prominent psychologist to examine human creativity. Maslow (1970, 1971) identified two stages of creativity. Primarycreativeness comes out of the unconscious and is the source of new discovery. Thisis what Maslow called real novelty, and is equivalent to the divergence componentof creativity. Secondary creativeness is based on logic, common sense and reason-

A theory of creativity in advertisingRobert E. Smith and Xiaojing Yang

33

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 33

ing and is built upon previous knowledge. This stage is equivalent to the relevancecomponent in most definitions of creativity. Thus, creativity is conceptualized asa function of divergence and relevance. The first and most essential element ofcreativity is divergence which ultimately stems from the ‘divergent production system’. Once a divergent idea is produced, it must be shaped in a manner tomake it relevant (i.e. able to solve a problem, achieve a goal, etc.). This secondarystage of creativity is determined by the ‘convergent production system’ inGuilford’s Model (1956).

In a review of creativity definitions in psychology, Mumford and Gustafson(1988) identified three major approaches. The common thread was again thatboth divergence and relevance are needed for creativity. Their final conclusionwas that creativity can be defined as ‘the production of novel, socially valuedproducts’ (Mumford and Gustafson, 1988: 28) and this was consistent with theearlier conclusions of Amabile (1983), Ghiselin (1963) and Harmon (1963). Thus,the key determinants of creativity are displayed in the Table 1.

Creativity in advertising

In the marketing/advertising literature, creativity has been approached from avariety of perspectives as summarized in Table 2.1 Similar to definitions in psy-chology, creativity in marketing is usually defined as having two characteristics:divergence and relevance (sometimes called effectiveness). For example, Amabilesuggests that a ‘product or response will be judged creative to the extent that it is a novel and appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable response to the task at hand. . .’ (1996: 5, emphasis added). Similarly, Tellis defines creativity as ‘productivedivergence’ (1998). Thus, because an ad has a specific goal, the level of creativityis to some extent based on its ability to achieve that goal (Duke and Sutherland,2001; Finke, 1995; Kover, 1995; Kover et al., 1995; Reid et al., 1998; Tellis, 1998;Wells et al., 1995). This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that creative adsare those that are perceived to be divergent and relevant.


34

Table 1

Creativity as a function of divergence and relevance

Divergent Non-divergent

Relevant Creative Relevant but commonNon-relevant Divergent but irrelevant Non-creative

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 34


35

Table 2

Conceptualizations of ad creativity

Source Divergence factor(s) Relevance factor(s) Effectiveness factor(s)

Jackson and Unusualness Appropriateness (i.e. Transformation (i.e.Messick (1965) (i.e. infrequent) fits its context), forces us to see

Condensation (i.e. reality in a new way)warrants repeated examination)

Sobel and Originality (i.e. Value (i.e. worth) Rothenberg (1980) newness)

Besemer and Novelty (i.e. Resolution (i.e.Treffinger (1981); newness), functionality)/Besemer and Elaboration and AppropriatenessO’Quinn (1986) synthesis (i.e. (i.e. solves problem)

stylistic details)

Amabile (1983) Novelty Appropriate, useful,valuable

Haberland and Originality (i.e. Meaningfulness (i.e. Reformulation (i.e.Dacin (1992) deviates from conveys meaning), modify brand

expectations) Condensation (i.e. attitude)warrants repeated examination)

Thorson and Zhao Originality (Novelty Meaningfulness/ Impact (stopping(1997); Wells (1989) of the creative appropriateness/ power, connections

product) relevance to ad) (personal concerns or interests)

Tellis (1998) Divergent (different Productivefrom what is (redeeming value,currently done) contributes to

brand’s welfare)

Duke (2000); Duke Imaginativeness External confluenceand Sutherland (similarity with similar(2001) products); Internal

confluence (similarity across executions within a campaign)

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 35

Conceptualization of divergence and creativity

Based on the psychological and marketing literature reviewed, creative ads aredefined as those that are both divergent and relevant.

Divergence

The first and most fundamental characteristic of ad creativity is divergence – thead must contain elements that are novel, different, or unusual in some way. Whilethe concept of divergence is clearly central to creativity it has received surprisinglylittle development in marketing/advertising. Usually, it is represented as a one-dimensional construct (e.g. originality or novelty) with little conceptual develop-ment (see summary in Table 2). This is an important omission because divergenceplays a major role and is a complex construct.

Relevance

While divergence is central to any definition of creativity, the ad also must be relevant – it must be meaningful, appropriate or valuable to the audience. Thus,relevance can be thought of as a stimulus property where some aspect of an advertisement is important, meaningful, or valuable to the consumer. Normally,relevance would be expected to be related to the brand/informational propertiesof the ad (e.g. was useful information attained). However, relevance can also beproduced by execution elements such as music. Indeed, at least two specific typesof relevance can be important for advertising:

Ad–consumer relevance This type of relevance is achieved when stimulus proper-ties of the ad create a meaningful link to the consumer. For example, using Beatlesmusic in an ad could create a meaningful link to Baby Boomers and, thereby,make the ad relevant to them.

Brand–consumer relevance This type of relevance occurs when an ad creates ameaningful link between the brand and the consumer. For example, the ad couldmake the brand seem right by showing it being used in circumstances familiar tothe consumer (Laczniak and Muehling, 1993; Mishra et al., 1993; Thorson andZhao, 1997).

Effectiveness

A third characteristic found in some definitions of creativity in advertising is thenotion of effectiveness – the ad must be productive or capable of achieving itsgoals. However, in this conceptualization, incorporating the notion of effective-ness confounds advertising creativity with its consequences. That is, creative adsare defined by some researchers as ones that are effective at achieving their goals.However, the primary reason why researchers and advertising practitioners are


36

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 36

interested in advertising creativity is as an explanation for why some ads are more effective at achieving their goals than others. To make effectiveness part ofcreativity itself is to eliminate its usefulness as an explanatory variable. It is illogi-cal to say that ads are more effective because they are creative, if they are creative,in part, because they are more effective. Therefore, we argue that notions of effectiveness, productivity, and impact should not be part of the definition of adcreativity.2

Ad versus brand elements

It is also important to identify two different types of ad elements. First, with fewexceptions, ads usually contain prominent brand-related (or ‘information’) ele-ments. These include the persuasive message, pictures of the brand, showing newuses for the product, and so on. In addition, the ad also contains some non-brand(or ‘execution’ elements) that are not necessarily related to the brand. Thesewould include the layout and design, use of non-brand photographs or graphics,color, music and other ‘peripheral’ cues. This conceptualization is consistent withdistinctions between execution factors and messages factors recognized in pastadvertising research (e.g. Kim and Leckenby, 2002; Stewart and Furse, 1984).

Focus on divergence

While both divergence and relevance are determinants of ad creativity, relevancehas received extensive treatment in the advertising literature under the term‘involvement’3 (Greenwald and Leavitt, 1984; Krugman, 1965, 1971; Laczniak andMuehling, 1993; MacInnis and Jaworski, 1989; Mishra et al., 1993; Petty andCacioppo, 1986; Petty et al., 1983; Thorson and Zhao, 1997). Conversely, diver-gence has received very little attention. Indeed, the studies summarized in Table 2 show that advertising applications of creativity have been primarily one-dimensional in the development of the divergence construct. This is problematicbecause divergence is the most primary element of creativity and needs to be better understood and modeled. Accordingly, the next section develops the diver-gence component in significantly greater detail than previous advertising models.

Theoretical development of divergence

In the creativity literature, Guilford (1950, 1956) was one of the first to focus on divergence and proposed several facets of creativity that reflect the divergenceand relevance components. Of the factors, seven were related to divergence: sensitivity to problems, fluency (number of ideas), novelty, flexibility, synthesis,redefinition/reorganization, and complexity; and one factor was related to relevance: evaluation/shaping. Torrance (1972, 1987, 1988, 1990), who was alsointerested in the psychometrics of divergence, spent years empirically testing thecomponents of Guilford’s (1950, 1956, 1967) model. Torrance focused on the


37

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 37


38

Table 3

Determinants of divergence with examples

Factor Definition Advertising example

Fluency: The ability to generate a large number of Absolute Vodka® campaign,ideas – more than expected. ‘Got Milk’ campaign

Flexibility: The ability to generate different ideas. Arm & Hammer® bakingThe ability to shift from one type of soda and Bounce®

subject matter to another. Ideas that fall ‘multiple use’ campaignsoutside the logical or expected.

Originality: Ideas that are rare, surprising, or move Apple® computer’s ‘1984’away from the obvious and commonplace. Super Bowl ad, ‘Joe’ Isuzu®

The ability to break away from habit-bound ‘liar’ campaignand stereotypical thinking.

Elaboration: Thinking of unexpected details. The ability ‘Scratch and Sniff’ ads,to finish, extend, and detail basic ideas so interactive adsthey become more intricate, complicatedor sophisticated.

Resistance to The ability to keep ideas open and resist Energizer® Bunny ‘keeps onpremature quick, easy or obvious solutions. The going’ campaign,closure: ability to keep working is essential for the Folger’s® ‘soap opera’

incubation processes to function. (installment) campaign.

Unusual Seeing things from a different or unusual Lamisil® ads using cartoonperspective: outlook. Ability to produce internal ‘fungus creature’, Bac’n Bits®

visualizations (see beneath the surface), ads showing a cartoon dog’srich imagery, break or extend normal perspective boundaries, and provide unusual contexts.

Synthesis: The ability to bring together items by Budweiser® ‘Frog’combining, connecting, or blending campaign, Current GE®

normally unrelated objects or ideas. ‘imagination at work’Includes bold mental leaps and merging print campaignideas freely without self-imposed restrictions.

Humor: The ability to be expressive in a comical Early Miller Lite® campaign,way, to amuse people and make them laugh. recent ESPN® campaign

Richness and The ability to arrange shapes and colors in Early Infinity® adscolorfulness of an attractive way. The ability to produce (forest scenes and classicalimagery: artistic impressions or art of any kind. music), Michael Jackson

High production value. Pepsi® ads

Fantasy: The ability to generate non-real ideas, On-star® ‘Batman’ ads,worlds, or creations, often marked by Capital One ‘What’s inhighly fanciful or supernatural elements. your wallet’

Expression of The ability to convey an idea through the Hallmark Card® ads,emotion: feeling and use of emotional, poignant, Zoloft® campaign

and/or sensitive material.

continues

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 38

divergent production system and developed a subjective test to measure the mainindicators of creativity that has become the most widely used creativity test (Baer,1993). After conducting many factorial studies Torrance (1987) identified 14major determinants of divergence. Each factor is listed in Table 3 along with asummary definition and advertising examples.

Accordingly, any model of creativity in advertising should cover the majorfacets listed in Table 3. Together, these factors are conceived of as defining characteristics of creativity rather than as reflections of it. That is, divergent think-ing is a function of a person’s fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, resist-ance to premature closure, unusual perspective, synthesis and so on, rather thanthe underlying cause of these characteristics.4

It is important to note that divergence can be used in the execution elements ofthe ad (layout and design, celebrity spokespeople, unusual graphics, etc.) and/orthe brand/informational elements of the ad (clever copy, showing new uses for theproduct, unusual transformations of the product, etc.).

Ad processing model

The studies summarized in Table 2 have shown little consistency in operational-izations of ad creativity. In addition, each study examined different aspects of creativity with little consensus on the processing and response variablesemployed. To provide a more theoretically precise approach, the MacInnis andJaworski (1989) ad model is used to identify the key stimulus, processing andresponse variables.


39

Table 3 (cont.)

Determinants of divergence with examples

Factor Definition Advertising example

Empathic The ability to use an attitude or viewpoint Child abuse prevention ads, perspective: that understands the thoughts and feelings Many medical product ads

of others.

Provocative The ability to use analysis and queries that Bennington® campaign,questions: are intended to incite, arouse, or elicit an ‘Teaser’ ads

interesting response.

Future The ability to prospect or envision Galyan’s campaign ‘What’sorientation: future possibilities; to see and express Next,’ Sharper Image® ads

future events.

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 39

Pre-attentive processing

According to Greenwald and Leavitt (1984), ad processing begins with a ‘pre-attentive’ stage. When consumer involvement is low or ad clutter is high (bothconditions often apply in the marketplace) it is difficult for an ad to get noticed.To achieve this goal the ad must be frequently repeated or include ‘colorful, moving, novel, unexpected, or affect-evoking stimuli’ (Greenwald and Leavitt1984: 584).

Motivation to process

Once the consumer’s attention has been drawn to the ad, holding it becomes thenext goal. In the MacInnis and Jaworski (1989) model, the consumer’s motiva-tion, ability and opportunity to process the ad determine the amount of attentiongiven to it.

Attention/capacity

According to MacInnis and Jaworski (1989), attention reflects the level of focusgiven to the ad, specifically, whether ad processing is a primary or secondary task.As attention increases, greater amounts of working memory (i.e. short term memory capacity) are allocated to the stimulus.

Depth of processing

This reflects the consumer’s level of understanding regarding the ad’s informationand ranges from simple message recognition to constructive processes like relat-ing the message to one’s personal life, role-taking, or imagining the product inuse. Depth of processing has played a central role in determining the type ofencoding and ability to remember (Craik and Lockhart, 1972). In this model,Level I codes are superficial (analog) codes that can be remembered via rehearsal.Level II codes are more organized representations and take advantage of cate-gorical structures to enhance recall (Ornstein and Trabasso, 1974). Level III codesare creative or elaborate encodings (e.g. personal connections) that attach the newinformation to existing knowledge structures, thus maximizing recall (Krugman,1965).

Consumer response

In the MacInnis and Jaworski (1989) model, processing effects are linked directlyto consumer responses. These can be cognitive responses (e.g. thoughts about thead, brand, or the context), or affective responses (e.g. emotional response to the ad,attitude toward the ad, and brand attitudes), that together determine purchaseintentions.


40

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 40

Theoretical propositions

Divergence and consumer processing

One of the problems with past research on ad creativity is the lack of considera-tion for how divergence and creativity affect consumer processing. Often it isassumed that creative ads attract more attention than non-creative ads but moreelaborate models and hypotheses have not been considered. Accordingly, the discussion that follows examines variables that could be expected to explain ormoderate the effects of divergence and creativity on consumer processing andresponse.

Contrast effect By definition, divergent ads are different and novel so at the mostbasic level a contrast effect should be created. This contrast is produced via the ad’s divergent, which makes it stand out from other ads and thus attracts pre-attentive processing (such as orientation reactions) where the consumernotices and directs processing resources to the ad. An example of a contrast effectwould be the Gap® ads that present no message but show their logo while playingpopular music. Thus it is predicted that:

P1a: Ads with high divergent will receive significantly more notice than ads with low diver-gence.

An interesting related hypothesis would be:

P1b: Divergence related to ad execution elements will play the bigger role in attracting atten-tion, while divergence related to brand/message elements will play the bigger role in motivationto process the message and depth of processing.

Closure effect Divergence should also increase the consumer’s motivation toprocess an ad. This is because divergent stimuli are unusual and often ambiguousand people have a basic need to know and understand (Maslow, 1970). In addi-tion, previous research has shown that people have a need for closure and com-pletion and are interested in ambiguous and unusual stimuli (Peracchio andMeyers-Levy, 1994). For example, ‘teaser’ ads are specifically designed to createambiguity (and the resulting desire for closure), thereby increasing the con-sumer’s processing motivation.

P2: Consumers will have significantly higher motivation to process divergence ads than non-divergence ads in order to attain closure.

Correspondence effect Guilford (1950, 1956, 1967, 1968) developed the conceptof ‘creative continuity’ which suggests that all humans produce divergent cogni-tions and thus have some degree of creative potential:

Whatever the nature of creative talent may be, those persons who are recognized as creativemerely have more of what all of us have. It is this principle of continuity that makes possiblethe investigation of creativity in people who are not necessarily distinguished. (Guilford, 1950:446)


41

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 41

Thus, creativity is seen as an innate cognitive resource that every consumer possesses to some degree. In addition, creativity can be specific to a certain type ofdivergence (e.g. a person can be high in verbal fluency but low in future orienta-tion). An interesting question to examine is whether the effects of divergence areincreased when the criterion of ‘correspondence’ is achieved. Correspondenceoccurs when the ad’s divergence matches up with the consumer’s divergence. Forexample, ads rated high on imagination should have stronger effects on con-sumers with strong imaginations than on consumers with weak imaginations.

This proposition can be supported by implicit cognitions and attitude-functionliterature. Research regarding implicit cognitions (Greenwald and Banaji, 1995)has demonstrated that attitude objects related to self-identity will receive morefavorable responses (even when subconscious). From an attitude function per-spective, people are more likely to exhibit positive attitudes toward objects thatexpress their self-identity (Shavitt, 1990).

There is also some evidence that different groups may show significant differ-ences in their orientations toward divergence. Duke and Sutherland (2001) askedaward-winning creative professionals and advertising faculty to assess validity andrelevance for their ‘confluence’ model of creativity.5 Results showed that aca-demics preferred different variations of divergence than creative professionals.6

Thus,

P3a: When an ad’s divergence corresponds with the consumer’s divergent production system,the consumer will have significantly more motivation to process the ad.

P3b: When an ad’s divergence corresponds with the consumer’s divergent production system,the consumer will have significantly more favorable responses to the ad.

The elaboration effect It is predicted above that divergent ads will cause con-sumers to try to achieve understanding and closure. It can be further predictedthat achieving closure for divergent ads will often require more processing depth.Divergent ads should be more challenging to decode and interpret than con-vergent ads and thus require more elaborative processing to achieve understand-ing. As an example, McQuarrie and Mick (1992) examined ‘ad resonance’, whichis defined as a combination of wordplay and pictures that create ambiguous orincongruent stimuli. Predictions of positive effects for ad resonance were based onBerlyne’s (1971) work on the psychology of aesthetics that suggests ambiguous orincongruent stimuli produce positive reactions. The underlying mechanism isthat ambiguity and incongruity trigger the consumer’s desire to decode the message which results in a pleasurable response when understanding is achieved.Both of these stimulus properties are among the ‘collative variables’ found tostimulate arousal.

For maximum brand effects the deep processing should be brand-related ratherthan execution-related. An example of a divergent ad producing deep processing(of both the ad and the brand) is the famous ‘1984’ Big Brother Apple® ad.Although this ad was shown only once during the Super Bowl, its creative and layered meanings are still being studied and analyzed 20 years later.


42

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 42

P4: Ads rated high on brand-related divergence will receive significantly more processing depththan ads rated low on brand-related divergence.

Resistance to wear-out Another way for divergence to influence ad processing isby resisting ad wear-out. Ad wear-out occurs when ads are repeated frequently inthe marketplace (MacInnis et al., 2002; Pieters et al., 1999). This causes adaptationto the stimulus over time and decreases consumer interest and motivation toprocess the ad. At the extreme, ads become monotonous, and ultimately canbecome disliked – causing negative consumer responses. It seems reasonable topredict that at least some types of divergence (e.g. originality or fantasy) can beexpected to wear out at a significantly slower rate than non-divergent ads.

P5: Some types of divergence should resist wear-out significantly longer than non divergentads.

Route to persuasion According to Petty and Wegener (1999), variables such asdivergence can play multiple roles in information processing and persuasion.Divergence can serve as a peripheral cue when consumers do not have the moti-vation or ability to process information contained in the ad. In this case, the adsare persuasive due to ‘affect transfer’ from the divergence in the ads. Specifically,divergence is an important element of the ad’s ‘production value’ and it is wellknown that perceptions of ad quality are transferred to ad attitudes (MacKenzieet al., 1986). Note that the source of divergence in this case is more likely to beassociated with execution elements rather than with brand or message elements(due to lack of central processing). This proposition is very consistent with theway creativity has been developed in advertising textbooks (i.e. a device toincrease the consumer’s attention and attraction to the ad).

P6a: Divergence related to execution elements is most likely to serve as a peripheral cue in thepersuasion process.

However, divergence also can enhance the likelihood that consumers will elabo-rate the ad’s message. In essence, relevant divergence can serve as an argument forconsumers to be persuaded by the ad because it causes them to mentally considernew and salient factors (e.g. deeper level of processing, more personal con-nections, etc.). Divergence and creativity’s role in the central route to persuasionhave not been contemplated or examined in the literature but may be more force-fully linked to brand responses like attitudes and purchase intentions.

P6b: Divergence related to brand/message elements can serve as a motive for central process-ing of the brand message.

Effects of divergence on consumer response

Cognitive and affective response It is predicted that divergent ads will produce significantly more favorable cognitive and affective responses. This favorability will result from the primary value of divergent stimuli. Researchers have longacknowledged that consumers possess internal dispositions related to creativity.


43

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 43

For example, novelty-seeking (Finger and Mook, 1971), exploratory drive (Nissen,1951), incongruity seeking (Hunt, 1963), innovative proneness (Rogers, 1957),exploration ‘erg’ (Cattell, 1957), and variety seeking (Faison, 1977; Maddi, 1968)are all examples of consumers seeking divergent stimuli. In addition, there is strong evidence from social-psychology research that consumers can be expectedto produce and appreciate creative ideas (Guilford, 1967). Thus, people like newthings and produce divergent thoughts and ideas themselves. Therefore, it can bepredicted:

P7: Ads rated high on divergence will produce significantly more favorable cognitive and affective responses.

This general effect can be examined more specifically depending on the nature ofthe ad’s divergence. When divergence is tied to execution elements, the deeperprocessing (P4) will be execution-related and should produce more desirable adresponses (e.g. ad cognitions or AAd). However, such processing may distract con-sumers from the ad’s message (e.g. using Beatle’s music to attract the attention ofBaby Boomers may cause them to recall forceful personal memories that interferewith message processing). Conversely, when divergence is message-related thedeep processing will produce more desirable brand responses (e.g. brand cogni-tions or AB).

P8a: When divergence is execution-related it will produce more favorable consumer responsesin terms of ad cognitions and ad attitudes than when divergence is brand-related.

P8b: When divergence is brand-related it will produce more favorable consumer responses interms of brand cognitions, brand attitudes, and purchase intentions than when divergence isexecution-related.

Memory of advertising Divergent ads are also expected to facilitate memory andretrieval of ad and brand information. This proposition is based on the expectedincrease in both attention (P1–P3) and processing depth (P4–P5). Both of thesevariables have been linked to better encoding, transfer to long-term memory, andaccessibility/retrieval in the Levels of Processing model of memory (Craik andLockhart, 1972).

P9a: Consumers will have better memory for ads high in divergence (on execution elements)than for ads low in divergence.

P9b: Consumers will have better memory for brands in ads with high divergence (onbrand/message elements) than for brands in ads with low divergence.

Effects of creativity – divergence plus relevance

Relevance has received significant treatment in the marketing/advertising litera-ture. Research suggests that relevance can increase pre-attentive processing andattention, motivation to process, and depth of processing (Greenwald and Leavitt,1984; MacInnis and Jaworski, 1989). Thus, one can expect a main effect for relevance and a main effect for divergence on ad processing and response. The


44

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 44

interesting issue is whether the main effects for divergence and relevance will be simply additive or whether a fan-shaped interaction effect will occur where creative ads (relevant and divergent) are unusually effective in gaining notice,motivation and depth.

P10: Relevance and divergence will show a significant interaction effect on ad notice, motiva-tion to process the ad, depth of ad processing, and consumer responses.

Moderating role of involvement

The effects of divergence are expected to be moderated by the level of consumerinvolvement. In this model, involvement reflects a consumer’s continuing interestin a brand. For example, consumers often experience an increase in involvementright before and after purchase and become more attentive to brand stimuli and ads. When involvement is low, the pre-attentive effects of divergence should bemagnified. This is because consumers will be attracted to the divergent executionelements even if they are not currently in a purchase cycle for the product (i.e. low brand involvement). Conversely, when consumer involvement is high, thepre-attentive and attention effects of divergence will be minimized. This isbecause the consumer is already attentive to the brand, so ad-related divergence isless effective.

P11: An interaction effect is predicted for consumer involvement and divergence. When con-sumer involvement is low, the pre-attentive, attention and motivation effects of divergent execution elements are significantly higher than when consumer involvement is high.

Managerial issues

The resource allocation hypothesis At a conceptual level one can think of how thetotal resources in an ad are allocated between divergence elements and relevanceelements. The resources of an ad include the amount of space, time, budget andso on. It seems likely that different communication-effects goals will require different combinations of resource allocation for maximum effectiveness. Forexample, in the early stages of the campaign where attention and awareness are the goals, most of the ad’s resources should be devoted to divergence (especiallyexecution elements) to maximize contrast effects. As goals move up the hierarchyof effects to interest and comprehension, more of the ad’s resources should bedevoted to relevance (especially brand/message elements) and less to divergence.

In addition, the divergence elements of the ad campaign can also be expected tochange as new goals are pursued. Specifically, during the beginning of the cam-paign most of the divergence should be related to execution elements to attractattention. As goals move up the hierarchy of effects, the divergence should beincreasingly related to the brand or message elements (which will facilitate deeperprocessing and better memory). Thus, future research should investigate the optimal level of resource allocation for divergence and relevance elements for different ad objectives throughout the campaign.


45

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 45

P12a: Different levels of ad divergence and relevance will be needed for different communica-tion-effects goals.

P12b: Different types of ad divergence (execution-related versus brand-related) will be neededfor different communication-effects goals.

Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising

While the above model developed some of the key processing and response issuesassociated with ad divergence, the interface between creativity and advertisingincludes a much broader conceptual domain. Specifically, it is important to con-sider creativity in advertising from a number of different perspectives.

Creativity in the communication process

Advertising is a major form of communication between companies and their customers. Issues involved here include how creativity affects persuasion, infor-mation processing, consumer response and what variables interact with creativityto influence ad effectiveness. Processing issues were considered in detail above butrelated issues include how to:

• use creativity to position the image of the company;• introduce new products or brand extensions;• recommend new usages for their existing products; • encourage consumers to participate in promotional activities (e.g. sales promo-

tions);• recognize the possible negative effects of non-creative ads; and • identify when consumers prefer creative or non-creative ads.

Creativity in the management process

Advertising is an element of the promotional mix and must be carefully managedto maximize sales. Promotional management issues related to creativity include:

• hiring, managing and motivating creative personnel; • understanding and stimulating the creative process; • developing creative strategy and tactics; • determining whether creative goals have been met; • planning creative advertising campaigns; and • facilitating a creative atmosphere in the organization.

Creativity as a societal process

Advertising has significant effects on society and some of the important ones aredirectly related to creativity. Issues here include:


46

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 46

• effects on popular culture; • advertising as commercial art; • cross-cultural differences in processing creative ads; • appeals to ‘out-group’ consumer movements (e.g. anti-consumption);• teaching advertising; and• using creative ads to educate consumers on important societal issues (such as

the dangers of drunk driving or how to reduce the risk of AIDS).

Creativity as a group process

Advertising creativity is usually a product of group collaboration and therefore itis critical to assess how creative ideas are generated in a team setting. Issues hereinclude:

• effects of majority/minority influence; • the role of personal/social identity; • group creativity and the factors that facilitate or prevent group members from

producing creative ideas; and • the effects of variables like rewards, promotion/prevention focus, mood, and

shifting of self-construal levels, on the production of creative ideas.

Creativity as a personal process

Advertising creativity is processed by individual consumers and can have personalramifications. Issues here include advertising as a source of:

• consumer growth; • consumer creativity;• consumer self-actualization;• consumer self-concept; and • the impact of these individual difference variables on the effectiveness of cre-

ative ads.

A practitioner’s perspective

The processing/response propositions and general issues identified above aredeductive and speculative until empirical evidence can be examined. For aninductive or experience-based perspective on ad creativity, a prominent advertis-ing executive, Bob Boelter,7 was asked to comment on the theoretical propositionsand general issues in this article.

Mr Boelter’s conceptual observations include the identification of another typeof relevance (ad-to-brand), and another divergence factor (artistic expression).Also, he suggests that divergence can be expected to play a lesser role when theproduct has news value as creativity may distract from the story. He also identi-fies boundaries for when creativity may not be appropriate for the target market


47

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 47

(e.g. older consumers may prefer less creativity than younger consumers) or theproduct (e.g. creativity may be inappropriate for medical or health-related prod-ucts). He also questions whether the predicted interaction between involvementand divergence will always hold – even when the consumer is involved, the mar-ketplace is still very competitive so divergence can have an effect.

As for the broader issues, Mr Boelter notes that consumers are not only exposedto many creative ads but that they are free and do not require much time so thereis a positive impact on society. Also, he notes that many brand managers are cau-tious and risk averse and thus prefer ads that are more familiar and comfortable –an ‘anti-divergence’ attitude. ‘If a deeper understanding of the divergence factorscould help these people better appreciate the important role of creativity in adver-tising – that would be a big plus.’ A summary of Mr Boelter’s major thoughts andcriticisms are paraphrased in Table 4 and provide interesting examples and valu-able ideas for consideration and future research.

Contributions to advertising theory

Conceptual focus on creativity in advertising

In advertising, there is a consistent theme that creative strategy and the level ofcreativity in ads can be critical to success. Unfortunately, there is very little sys-tematic research available to help in understanding, assessing, or implementingcreativity in advertising. While promising perspectives sometimes appear in aca-demic conferences (e.g. Broyles, 2000; Clow and Baack, 2001; Frazer, 2002), thereis little systematic overlap among them. To help address these problems, thisresearch first focused on defining creativity by tracing its conceptual and empiri-cal roots in psychology. The broader conceptual definition offered should helporient future research toward creativity’s key determinants: divergence and rele-vance. Next, the major divergence factors were identified, explained and exempli-fied in Table 3. By focusing on divergence, this article provided new details aboutits complex nature and specific determinants.

The lack of past conceptual development on ad creativity has caused problemsfor those involved in creative endeavors and also marketing managers who mustsomehow evaluate the extent to which creative strategy is being achieved.Advertising is a prime example where the ‘creativity’ of a proposed ad campaignmust be assessed in relation to the objectives specified in the creative strategy.However, this has been a difficult task for advertisers who have relied on measuresof ad divergence (usually one-dimensional) that do not reflect the full array of fac-tors developed in Table 3. This is theoretically and managerially importantbecause some types of divergence may be able to achieve a specific creative strat-egy better than an alternative type of divergence.


48

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 48


49

Table 4

A practitioner’s perspective

Issues related to advertising creativity Comments from Bob Boelter7

Relevance: There should probably be a third type: ad-to-brand relevance,1. Ad-to-consumer which would reflect the level of coordination between the 2. Brand-to-consumer execution elements and the brand elements of the ad. I have

found it to be very challenging to build a good creative strategythat is still closely related to the brand. I think a good exampleof this is the recent AFLAC® commercials where name recognition is the focus but it has been achieved creatively.

Note that AFLAC is now putting little message points into thecommercials. This is consistent with the idea that different creative strategies are needed as the goals of the advertisingcampaign change.

The divergence factors I would consider another factor called ‘artistic expression’.There are many ways an ad can be artistic other than through‘richness and colorful imagery’. Photography, lighting, design andlayout, editing and the other elements of the ad can achieve alevel of artistry when done effectively.

Flexibility A good example of this was the Bob Dole and Britney SpearsPepsi® ads.

Unusual perspective A good example of this is the Chevy Trucks® campaign wherethe trucks are enormous and out of scale with the rest of thebackground.

Originality The new Las Vegas ads represent a totally different approachthan the family-oriented campaign they had been using. The newtagline is ‘what happens here stays here’.

Divergent ads tend to Exceptions to this generalization would be when the product hasproduce more favorable news value. In these situations excessive divergence will only consumer processing take away from the story. An example would be whenand response Polaroid® cameras developed instant picture technology. The

demonstration of the technology was the key, excessive divergence would have interfered with the message.

Another example might be certain product categories wherecreativity would be deemed inappropriate. For example, medicalproducts, utilities, or providers of essential services typicallywant to stick to the straight facts and might consider divergenceto be negative.

Divergence on execution This is generally true but you must consider the target market –elements will create more if the consumer does not relate to, or care about, the ad favorable ad response strategy they will not take the time to consider it. Also, it is not

unusual to find creative talent doing creative work just for thesake of creativity and this is probably some of the least effectivedivergence.

continues

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 49


50

Table 4 (cont.)

Issues related to advertising creativity Comments from Bob Boelter7

The correspondence I have definitely observed that different groups of people have effect different levels of creativity and divergence. For example, we

have had clients who target working-class consumers and tell usnot to use clever double entendre meanings because it would beineffective and interfere with the message getting through.Similarly, I’ve worked with engineers and we are in ‘differentworlds’ in terms of the divergent production system.

The predicted interaction I am not sure that this proposition will always hold. Even if thebetween involvement consumer is highly involved in the product, the market place isand divergence still very competitive. With all the stimuli shouting for the

consumers’ attention I think that divergence can still be effectiveeven when involvement is high – at least in some circumstances.

Resistance to ad I tend to agree that divergent ads will resist wear-out with thewear-out exception of some types of humor. If the ad’s humor is charming

or endearing it can be replayed with effectiveness. However,slapstick, ‘goofy’ ads, or ‘one note’ jokes typically do not wearwell in-market from my experience. One example of this is thecurrent Di-Tech® campaign which was funny at first, but hasworn thin on me.

Memory effects of I suspect that divergence would have the greatest impact ondivergent ads unaided brand recall as compared to aided recall or recognition

measures.

What is the relationship Production value is usually related to overall production cost and between creativity and in my experience the single most important determinant ofproduction value production cost is lighting. Television commercials today have so

many cuts and every scene has to be lit the exact same way forcontinuity. I like to define production value as ‘polishing out distractions’. Talent, editing and postproduction also influenceproduction value.

The relationship between My experience suggests that many brand managers and clientcreativity and the representatives are cautious when it comes to divergence.management process Often they avoid risks and prefer what is familiar and

comfortable – you could think of this as an ‘anti-divergence’ attitude. If a deeper understanding of the divergence factorscould help these people better appreciate the important role ofcreativity in advertising – that would be a big plus.

The effects of creativity I definitely agree that consumers are exposed to many creativeon society stimuli via advertising. And it’s free and doesn’t take a lot of

time. I do believe this has a positive impact on the general levelof creativity in society and that is a good thing.

Creative ads that do An example of this might be the Taco Bell® Chihuahua dog not stimulate sales commercials. They tested very popular with audiences but sales

did not respond. Once the commercials were removed, salesstarted trending upward again. Maybe a small dog was not agood association for selling tacos.

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 50

Effects of divergence on consumer processing

Past research has not addressed how creativity, especially divergence, influencesthe processing and persuasiveness of advertising. This article attempts to fill thisgap by formulating a total of 18 preliminary propositions regarding how diver-gence and creativity affect ad processing and response. Another problem with pastresearch was the use of many different variables to represent relevance/effective-ness depending on the focus of the particular study. In this article, the pro-cessing/response model of MacInnis and Jaworski (1989) was used to clarify andorganize past research as well as to articulate the propositions. The resultinghypotheses represent some of the most detailed treatment yet as to how ad creativity achieves its effects.

Ad relevance

Although ad relevance was not the focus of this article, important issues involvingit were examined. After conceptually defining relevance we identified two waysthat ads could achieve it (i.e. through an ad-to-consumer link or a brand-to-consumer link). This is important because different types of relevance (and divergence) may produce different processing and response from consumers assuggested in some of the propositions.

Creativity as an interaction between divergence and relevance

An interaction effect was predicted between relevance and divergence such thatads containing both features will be significantly more effective. This represents animportant area for future research and highlights the need to better understandthe complex relationship between the two types of relevance and the 14 differenttypes of divergence listed in Table 3.

Basis for developing scales to measure ad creativity

A major implication from this study is that the 14 divergence factors and two relevance factors can be used to develop scales to measure perceived ad creativity.Development of such scales would allow advertising researchers to investigatehow divergent properties of marketing stimuli affect consumer processing andresponse. This is considered critical because the advances in understanding howconsumers process and respond to persuasive messages has not yet been forcefullyapplied to the area of creativity – despite its manifest importance in generatingmarketplace success.

Scales could be developed to assess the 14 divergence factors delineated herewhich could then be used by consumers, marketing managers, or expert judges toassess the divergence of a proposed ad or campaign. The development of suchscales also would be beneficial to areas beyond advertising such as assessment ofnew products or management techniques (Andrews and Smith, 1996). In addi-


51

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 51

tion, creativity in advertising scales need to include measures of ad-to-consumerrelevance and brand-to-consumer relevance. Indeed, precise measures of the different types of relevance and divergence would add significantly to our abilityto test ad creativity in the laboratory and in the market.

In addition, the divergence components in Table 3 can serve as a guide for waysto make an ad divergent. This would be a useful tool in brainstorming sessions tomake sure ideas are considered from the full set of divergence components.

A general theory of creativity in advertising

After examining consumer processing and response issues in detail the discussionmoved up in level of abstraction to help identify the general conceptual space of‘creativity in advertising’. Five major paradigms were identified (creativity incommunications, management, society, groups and individuals). This model suggests that advertising is a major field of application for creativity. For example,modern consumers are exposed to many creative advertisements each day –indeed this is probably a major creative interface for many people in economicallyadvanced societies. Thus, the general theory section identifies a number of different ways that advertising creativity is important. Hopefully, as marketingresearchers develop and refine creativity in advertising theory, it will come to beincluded in broader reviews of the construct (e.g. Handbook of Creativity[Sternberg, 1999]).

Practitioner’s perspective

This article also provided observations on the theoretical propositions and issuesfrom an experienced advertising executive, summarized in Table 4. There are avariety of implications here including the addition of ad-to-brand relevance, anew divergence factor, situations where creativity may be inappropriate, andboundaries for some of the predicted effects.

Future research

Another contribution of the conceptualization presented here is that it identifiesspecific areas for future research. This platform for future explorations is neededdue to the current paucity of research on advertising creativity.

Research on the divergence factors First, little is known about how the divergencefactors operate in marketing settings. For example, there has been speculation inthe trade papers as to why award-winning ads sometimes do not stimulate saleseffectively. The divergence factors can be used to investigate the hypothesis thataward-winning ads tend to rate high in imagination and originality but low on relevance while ads that generate more favorable sales impact should possessdivergence and relevance.

The divergence factors developed here also make it possible to study how


52

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 52

ad creativity influences attention, processing depth, ad/brand memory, self-referencing, ad attitudes, and brand attitudes. It also will be possible to examinewhich factors are most important (and when), and which factors are best atachieving specific communication-effects goals. For example, it could be hypothesized that the divergence factors best at influencing motivation to processand attention value might be different from the factors that are most successful atinfluencing depth of processing or purchase intentions. In addition, there is theissue of the magnitude of divergence – how much divergence is needed to achievecreativity and when does the degree of divergence become too extreme? It can also be expected that perceptions of creativity are influenced by factors such asconsumer age, gender, education and culture.

How long does divergence produce its effects? In the marketplace, ads arerepeated frequently and the effects of divergence will likely show a wear-out effect.That is, the creativity effects could be expected to decline as consumers repeatedlyview the ad and become accustomed to what was once divergent. While divergentads are expected to resist wear-out longer than non-divergent ads, these effectswill not last indefinitely and may vary by the type of divergence. Indeed, it is possible that some of the advertising wear-out function is due to the short life ofthe divergence component.

Research on processing and response Future research is also necessary to examinethe research propositions advanced in this article. Experiments can be designed tomanipulate the key independent variables and interaction effects can be examined(like those predicted for involvement).

Research on macro issues Research is also needed on how cultural differencesmay impact the processing and effects of ad creativity. What cross-cultural differ-ences exist in the effectiveness of creative ads? For instance, do Asian consumersand American consumers value different factors of divergence to a varying extent,or attach different importance to divergence and relevance? Other demographicvariables that could be investigated as possible moderators of ad creativity effectsare gender differences and generational differences.

General theory issues The broader issues identified in the general theory sectionalso represent fertile ground for future research. These issues cross disciplines andwill require multiple perspectives and research methods for triangulation tooccur. Research involving these five areas can help to gain a deeper understandingof fundamental creativity issues including: what is ad creativity, what are theeffects of creative ads, and how to generate creative ads.

Research opportunities Finally, there are many mature research areas in advertis-ing that continue to attract the attention of new researchers. Ad creativity is animportant frontier that has barely been examined by marketing scholars andtherefore possesses significant unexplored territory.


53

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 53

Conclusion

Creativity is sometimes considered the ‘artistic’ side of marketing/advertising that is difficult to measure and assess. Some marketing executives wisely sub-contract the creative function to specialists outside the firm (ad agencies, creative boutiques, etc.) but ultimately they must somehow determine if creative goals arebeing achieved. A conceptual understanding of ad creativity is required before thisimportant goal can be realized.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Bob Boelter, Scott B. MacKenzie, William K. Darley, LauraBuchholz, Daniel C. Smith, Jonlee Andrews, Chuck Lindsey, Huifang Mao, Shelly Jain,three anonymous reviewers, and the editor for their contributions to this research.

Notes

1 The authors thank William K. Darley for his contribution to this table.2 The authors thank Scott B. MacKenzie for this observation.3 Consumers are ‘involved’ if the ad contains brand or non-brand elements that are

‘personally relevant’.4 The authors thank Scott B. MacKenzie for this observation.5 Their model includes three components: internal confluence (similarity across execu-

tions within a campaign), external confluence (similarity with advertising concepts ofsimilar products), and imaginativeness.

6 While academics valued high internal confluence most, high imaginativeness secondand high external confluence third, creative professionals valued high imaginativenessfirst, followed by low external confluence and low internal confluence.

7 Bob Boelter is Chairman of Boelter & Lincoln Marketing Communications. MrBoelter received a BS in art (1968) from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, andserved as principal creative director and art director for advertising agencies inMilwaukee, Chicago and Madison. Currently, Boelter & Lincoln bills US$28 millionannually with offices in Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin. The agency serves marketers of consumer services with marketing, research, advertising and public relations. The agency has significant experience in tourism, hospitality and recreationand has won numerous advertising awards for creative and ethical business practices.

References

Amabile, T. (1983) The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York: Springer-Veclay.Amabile, T. (1996) Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Inc.Andrews, J. and Smith, D. (1996) ‘In Search of the Marketing Imagination: Factors

Affecting the Creativity of Marketing Programs of Mature Products’, Journal ofMarketing Research 33 (May): 174–87.

Baer, J. (1993) Creativity and Divergent Thinking: A Task-Specific Approach. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Berlyne, D.E. (1971) Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.


54

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 54

Besemer, S. and O’Quinn, K. (1986) ‘Analyzing Creative Products: Refinement and Testof a Judging Instrument’, Journal of Creative Behavior 20(2): 115–26.

Besemer, S. and Treffinger, D.J. (1981) ‘Analysis of Creative Products: Review andSynthesis’, Journal of Creative Behavior 15(3): 158–78.

Broyles, S.J. (2000) ‘Diversity and its Relation to the Creative Execution in MagazineAdvertising’, in Mary A. Shaver (ed.) The Proceedings of the 2000 Conference of theAmerican Academy of Advertising, pp. 116–18. East Lansing, MI: American Academyof Advertising.

Cattell, R.B. (1957) Personality and Motivation Structure and Measurement. New York:Harcourt Brace.

Clow, K., Roy, D. and Baack, D. (2001) ‘Content Analysis of Creative Message Strategiesin Service Advertisements’, in Charles R. Taylor (ed.) The Proceedings of the 2001Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, pp. 48–55. Villanova, PA:American Academy of Advertising.

Craik, F. and Lockhart, R. (1972) ‘Levels of Processing: A Framework for MemoryResearch’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (December): 671–84.

Duke, L. (2000) ‘Like an Idea, Only Better: How Do Advertising Educators andPractitioners Define and Use the Creative Concept?’, in Mary A. Shaver (ed.) TheProceedings of the 2000 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, pp. 114–15.East Lansing, MI: American Academy of Advertising.

Duke, L. and Sutherland J. (2001) ‘Toward a Confluence Model of Advertising CreativeConcepts’, in Charles R. Taylor (ed.) The Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of theAmerican Academy of Advertising, p. 231. Villanova, PA: American Academy ofAdvertising.

Faison, E.W. (1977) ‘The Neglected Variety Drive: A Useful Concept for ConsumerBehavior’, Journal of Consumer Research 4 (December): 172–5.

Finger, F.W. and Mook, D.G. (1971) ‘Basic Drives’, Annual Review of Psychology 22:1–38.

Finke, R.A. (1995) ‘Creative Realism’, in Steven M. Smith, Thomas B. Ward and RonaldA. Finke (eds) The Creative Cognition Approach, pp. 303–26. Cambridge, MA: TheMIT Press.

Frazer, C. (2002) ‘Seven Creative Strategy Alternatives Revisited’, in Charles Taylor(ed.) The Proceedings of the 2002 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising,p. 180. Villanova, PA: American Academy of Advertising.

Getzels, J.W. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975) ‘From Problem Solving to ProblemFinding’, in I.A. Taylor and J.W. Getzels (eds) Perspectives in Creativity, pp. 90–116.Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Ghiselin, B. (1963) ‘Ultimate Criteria for Two Levels of Creativity’, in C.W. Taylor andF. Barron (eds) Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development, pp. 30–43. NewYork: Wiley.

Greenwald, A.G. and Leavitt, C. (1984) ‘Audience Involvement in Advertising: FourLevels’, Journal of Consumer Research 11 (June): 581–92.

Greenwald, A.G. and Banaji, M.R. (1995) ‘Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-esteem, and Stereotypes’, Psychological Review 102 (January): 4–27.

Guilford, J.P. (1950) ‘Creativity’, The American Psychologist 14: 444–54.Guilford, J.P. (1956) ‘The Structure of Intellect’, Psychological Bulletin 53: 267–93.Guilford, J.P. (1967) The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Guilford, J.P. (1968) Intelligence Creativity, and their Educational Implications. San

Diego, CA: Robert R. Knapp.


55

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 55

Haberland, G. and Dacin, P.A. (1992) ‘The Development of a Measure to AssessViewers’ Judgments of the Creativity of an Advertisement: A Preliminary Study’,Advances in Consumer Research 19: 817–25.

Harmon, L.R. (1963) ‘The Development of a Criterion of Scientific Competence’, inC.W. Taylor and F. Barron (eds) Scientific Creativity: Its Development and Recognition,pp. 44–52. New York: Wiley.

Hunt, J.V. (1963) ‘Motivation Inherent in Information Processing and Action’, in O.J.Harvey (ed.) Motivational and Social Interaction – Cognitive Determinants, pp. 35–94.NY: Ronald Press.

Jackson, P.W. and Messick, S. (1965) ‘The Person, the Product, and the Response:Conceptual Problems in the Assessment of Creativity’, Journal of Personality 33(March–December): 309–29.

Kim, H.G. and Leckenby, J. (2002) ‘Creative Factors in Interactive Advertising’, inAvery M. Abemethy (ed.) The Proceedings of the 2002 Conference of the AmericanAcademy of Advertising, pp. 58–63. Auburn, AL: American Academy of Advertising.

Kover, A.J. (1995) ‘Copywriters – Implicit Theories of Communication: AnExploration’, Journal of Consumer Research 21 (March): 596–611.

Kover, A.J., Goldberg, S.M. and James, W.L. (1995) ‘Creativity vs. Effectiveness? AnIntegrating Classification for Advertising’, Journal of Advertising Research 35(November/December): 29–38.

Krugman, H.E. (1965) ‘The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning WithoutInvolvement’, Public Opinion Quarterly 29: 349–56.

Krugman, H.E. (1971) ‘Brain Wave Measures of Media Involvement’, Journal ofAdvertising Research 11 (February): 3–9.

Laczniak, R.N. and Muehling, D.D. (1993) ‘The Relationship Between ExperimentalManipulations and Tests of Theory in an Advertising Message Involvement Context’,Journal of Advertising 22 (September): 59–74.

MacInnis, D.J. and Jaworski, B.J. (1989) ‘Information Processing from Advertisements:Toward an Integrative Framework’, Journal of Marketing 53 (October): 1–23.

MacInnis, D.J., Rao, A.G. and Weiss, A.M. (2002) ‘Assessing When Increased MediaWeight of Real-World Advertisements Helps Sales’, Journal of Marketing Research 39(November): 391–407.

MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J. and Belch, G.J. (1986) ‘The Role of Attitude toward the Adas a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations’,Journal of Marketing Research 23 (May): 130–43.

MacKinnon, D.W. (1962) ‘The Nature and Nurture of Creative Talent’, AmericanPsychologist 17(7): 484–95.

McQuarrie, E.F. and Mick, D.M. (1992) ‘On Resonance: A Critical Pluralistic Inquiryinto Advertising Rhetoric’, Journal of Consumer Research 19 (September): 180–97.

Maddi, S.R. (1968) ‘The Pursuit of Consistency and Variety’, in R.P. Abelson (ed.)Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook, pp. 267–74. Chicago, IL: RandMcNally.

Martin, M. (1995) ‘Do Creative Commercials Sell?’ Campaign 22 (September): 34–5.Maslow, A.H. (1970) Motivation and Personality (2nd Ed.). New York: Harper.Maslow, A.H. (1971) The Farthest Reaches of Human Nature. New York: Penguin

Books.Mishra, S., Umesh, U.N. and Stern, Jr. D.E. (1993) ‘Antecedents of the Attraction Effect:

An Information Processing Approach’, Journal of Marketing Research 30 (August):331–49.


56

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 56

Mumford, M.D. and Gustafson, S.B. (1988) ‘Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Applica-tion, and Innovation’, Psychological Bulletin 103 (January): 27–43.

Nissen, H.W. (1951) ‘Phylogenetic Comparison’, Handbook of Experimental Psychology.New York: John Wiley.

Ornstein, P.A. and Trabasso, T. (1974) ‘To Organize is to Remember – the Effects ofInstructions to Organize and Recall’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 103(5):1014–18.

Peracchio, L.A. and Meyers-Levy, J. (1994) ‘How Ambiguous Cropped Object in AdPhotos Can Affect Product Evaluations’, Journal of Consumer Research 21 (June):190–204.

Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central andPeripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T and Schumann, D. (1983) ‘Central and Peripheral Routes toAdvertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement’, Journal of ConsumerResearch 10 (September): 135–46.

Petty, R.E. and Wegener, D.T. (1999) ‘The Elaboration Likelihood Model: CurrentStatus and Controversies’, in Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope (eds) Dual ProcessTheories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

Pieters, R., Rosbergen, E. and Wedel, M. (1999) ‘Visual Attention to Repeated PrintAdvertising: A Test of Scanpath Theory’, Journal of Marketing Research 36 (Nov-ember): 424–38.

Reid, L.N., King, K.W. and DeLorme, D.E. (1998) ‘Top-Level Agency Creatives Look atAdvertising Creativity Then and Now’, Journal of Advertising 27 (Summer): 1–15.

Rogers, E.M. (1957) ‘Personality Correlates of the Adoption of Technological Practices’,Rural Psychology 22: 267–8.

Shavitt, S. (1990) ‘The Role of Attitude Objects in Attitude Functions’, Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology 26 (March): 124–48.

Sobel, R.S. and Rothenberg, A. (1980) ‘Artistic Creation as Stimulated by SuperimposedVersus Separated Visual Images’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(November): 953–61.

Sternberg, R.J. (1999) The Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Stewart, D.W. and Furse, F. (1984) ‘Analysis of the Impact of Executional Factors onAdvertising Performance’, Journal of Advertising Research 24: 23–6.

Tellis, G.J. (1998) Advertising and Sales Promotion Strategy. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Thorson, E. and Zhao, X. (1997) ‘Television Viewing Behavior as an Indicator ofCommercial Effectiveness’, in William D. Wells (ed.) Measuring AdvertisingEffectiveness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Torrance, E.P. (1972) ‘Predictive Validity of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking’,Journal of Creative Behavior 6(4): 236–52.

Torrance, E.P. (1987) Using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking to Guide the Teachingof Creative Behavior. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E.P. (1988) ‘Creativity as Manifest in Testing’, in J.R. Sternberg (ed.) TheNature of Creativity, pp. 43–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Torrance, E.P. (1990) The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Norms-Technical Manual.Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Wells, W.D. (1989) Planning for R.O.I.: Effective Advertising Strategy. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Wiley.


57

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 57

Wells, W., Burnett, J. and Moriarty, S. (1995) Advertising Principles and Practice.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zinkhan, G.M. (1993) ‘Creativity in Advertising: Creativity in the Journal of Advertis-ing’, Journal of Advertising 22 (June): 1–4.

Robert E. Smith is Professor of Marketing at Indiana University, Kelley School ofBusiness. Address: Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Bloomington, IN47405, USA. [email: [email protected])

Xiaojing Yang is a doctoral candidate at Indiana University, Kelley School of Business.


58

02_MT 4/1 6/3/04 2:12 PM Page 58

Documents

Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising: Examining the